The Bottineau pioneer. (Bottineau, N.D.) 1885-1895, 1887-12-15
PROHIBITION SUSTAINED.
The United States Supreme Court De.
cides the Kansas Prohibition Cases
In Favor of the State.

An Exhaustive Disquisition Upon the
Right Of q State to Enact and En-
force Prohibition Laws.
WASHINGTON. Dec GA very important
decision, and one likely to be far-reaching In
it's consequences, was rendered In the United
States supreme n to-day In the Kansaf
prohibition cases Of Mugler against the Stat.
Of Kansas and the State of Kansas against lie
bold and others The Judgment of the cour,
was announced in o long opinion by Justice
Harlan, who said: 1
The general question in each case is whether
the prohibition statutes OF Kansas are In confict
which provides that no state shall make or en-
force any law which shall abridge the privileges
or tnnuni:ie les Of citizens OF the United States,
! liberty or property without due process OF law
That legislation by a state prohibiting the man
~ufacture within her limits OF intoxicating
use as a beverage, does not necessarily infringe
any right, privilege or immunity secured by the
constitution Of the United States. is made clear
and since the adoption of the fourteenth amend.
ment. It is, however. contendedt that. although
the state may prohibit the manufacture OF In
| toxicating liquors for sale OF b .rter within her
limits for general use as O beverage. no conven-
ton or legislature has the right under
s sn1 o fS1m Of from s0T %anafaeturin 10 f RaGD' Sis
own use or for export or storage, any
article Of food or drink not endangering or
affecting the rights Of others. The argnmen
made In support of the first branch Of this
proposition is: That in the implied compacts
between the state and the citizen, certain rights
are reserved by the latter which are guaranteed
by thu constitutional provisions for the pro-
lection of life, liberty and property against de-
p%rivation without due process of law and with
which the state cannot interfere: that az ong
these rights ts that of manufacturing for ones
own use either food or drink: that, while &C
cording to the doctrines of the che
state may control the tastes, appetites. habits,
dress. food and drink Of the citizen, our system
Of government, based upon the individuality
and intelligence OF the people. does not claim to
control him except as to his conduct to others.
leaving him the sole judge as to all that only
affects himself. It will be observed that the
proposition and the argument made IN support
Of it equally concede that the right to manu-
facture drink for ones personal use is subject to
the condition that such manufacture does not
endanger Or N.
AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. T. ,,2
If such manufacture does prejudicially affect
the rights and interests Of the community. 1t
follows from the very premises stated by coun-
sci that society has the power to protect itself
by legislation against the injurious consequences
OF hat business AS was said in Mum vs.. IlIi.
nojs (94 U. s., 124, while power does not exist
with the whole people to control rights that are
purely and exclusively private, government may
require each citizen 80 to conduct himself and
so to use his WI property as not unnecessarily
to tnjure another. But by whom or by what au-
thority is it to be determined whether the man.
ufacture Of particular articles Of drink. either
for general use or for the personal use Of the
maker. will injuriously affect the pu5lic2 Power
to determine such questions so as to bind all
must exist somewhere, else society will be at the
mercy of the few who, regarding only their own
appetites or passions: may % willing to imperi
the peace and security Of the many, provided
only they are allowed to do as they rlease. Under
our system that power IL lodged with the legis-
lative branch Of the government. II belongs to
that department. to exert the police powers Of
the state. It must determine primarily what
measures are appropriate or Heedful for the pro-
lection Of the public morals. the public health
or the public safety. It does not at all follow
from these principles that every statute enacted
ostensibly for The promotion OF these ends is to
be accepted as q legitimate exertion ct the police
powers Of the state. There are of necessity
limits beyond which legislation cannot rightly
60. As the courts must obey the constitution
rather than the la~w-making department OF the
government, It must upon its responsibility de-
termine whether in any. particular case these
limits have been passed. The courts are not
bound by m ,re forms nor are they To be misled,
by mere pretenses. They are at liberJy-indeed.
are under a solemn auty-to look at the sub
stance of things whenever they enter upon the
inquiry. whether the legislature has transcribed
the limits Of its authority. II, therefore, a
statnte purporting to have been enacted to pro-
public safety, has no real or substantial rela-
lions to those objects OF rights secured by the
fundamental law. it Is the duty Of the courts to
tuition. Keeping in view these principles as
governing the relations with each other Of the
judicial and legislative departments Of govern
ment, 1t is ~
DIFFICULT TO PERCEIVE ANY aRouND
TOR the judiciary to declare that the prohibition
by Kansas Of the manufacture or sale within
her limits of intoxicating liquors for general use
there as q beverage Is not fairly adapted to the
| ps01 nf prnfnNtinO the NOInInnpifvA va1nSt the
evils which cOnfessediy result from the excess-
i've use Of ardent spirits. There is here no JUS
guise Of police regulations, is aiming to deprive
this citizen Of his constitutional rights: for we
cannot shut out Of view the fact, within the
pubic morals and the public safety may be- en-
dangered by the general use Of Intoxicating
drinks. Nor can we ignore the fact, established
disorder, pauperism and crime prevalent in the
country are in large measure directly traceable
to this evil. If, therefore, a state deems the alb
solute prohibition OF tine manufacture and sale
for other than medical. scientific and
manufacturing purposes 90 be necessary to the
without usurping legislative functions. override
the will Of the people as thus expressed by their
chosen representatives. It Is a fundamental
principle In our institutions. Indispensable to
the preservation Of public liberty. that one Of
these departments Of government shall not
usurp powers committed by the constitution to
announcer QeparJinenb. anu bos II III tne JuuR-
ment Of the legislature the manufacture OF in
toxicating liquors for the makers own use as a
beverage would tend 10 cripple, II not to defeat
her efforts to guard the community against the
evils attending the excessive use OF such liquors.
1t Is not for the courts, upon their views as to
what is best and safest for the community, to
disregard the legislative determination Of that
question. So far from such q regulation being
inappropriate to the general end sought to be
accomplished. It is easy to be seen that
the entire scheme Ct prohibition az
Of Kansas. might fail Il the right
Of each citizen to manufacture Intoxicating
| liquors for his own use as a beverage were recogI
nized. Such o right does not inhere in citizen
ship. Nor can it be said that the government in
~terferes with or impairs any ones constitutional
rights Of liberty or OF property, when it deter
mines that the manufacture and sale OF intoxi-
eating drinks for general or individual use as q
beverage are or may become hurtful to society
and to every member OF it, and is therefore q
business in which no one can lawfully engage,
teenth amendment Of the constitution takes
from the states OF the Union those powers OF
police that were reserved at the time the orig
tnal constitution was adopted. But this court
has declared, upon full consideration lin Bar
bier vs.. Connolly. 1l3 u. s.. 31,Dthat the four-
teenth amendment had no such effect.
THE PROPERTY OBJECTION.
With reference TO the assertion that the
prohibition OF the manufacture and sale OF
liquor deprives liquor dealers OF their prop
erty without due process ct law, the court
says: &
All property under our form Of government is
subject to the obligation that IL shall NOT be
used so az to injuriously all cot the rights Of the
community and thereby become p nuisance.
The State Of Kansas had q right to prohibit the
liquor traffic. It did not thereby take away the